Re: The Global UFO Cover-Up - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 10:24:54 -0700
Fwd Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 15:20:34 -0400
Subject: Re: The Global UFO Cover-Up - Rudiak
>From: Rich Reynolds <rrrgroup.nul>>To: ufoupdates.nul>Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 18:36:47 -0500>Subject: Re: The Global UFO Cover-Up>>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>>>Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 08:04:30 -0700>>Subject: Re: The Global UFO Cover-Up>>>From: Rich Reynolds <rrrgroup.nul>>>>To: ufoupdates.nul>>>Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:36:48 -0500>>>Subject: Re: The Global UFO Cover-Up>>Since it is scientifically impossible for a "balloon" of any>>kind to account for the Socorro sighting (for many reasons>>already pointed out by the Rudiaks, Hatches, Maccabees, etc. but>>which others just don't get), I don't know why any rational>>person would waste their time on another of Reynold's pointless>>fishing expeditions.>>Has anybody else noticed that Reynold's and his rrrgroup are>>always promising solutions manana for classic UFO cases, but>>somehow manana never comes? If Reynold's has a winning hand,>>then he should show it. All else is bluff.>I hope you don't read and interpret other things as wrongly as>you've read and interpreted my post here.
Since you never seem to have anything to say of substance, there
is nothing to wrongly interpret.
>I offered the site for those who might want to check sightings>against the documentation found there.
You clearly tried to tie in Socorro with Naval balloon projects.
>Some might enjoy the papers by J.Allen Hynek about astronomy and>balloons.
Again you change subjects. You were claiming there was material
in there that solved Socorro. Where is it?
You've pulled this nonsense more than once, directing people to
an archive, claiming solutions were there, and telling them to
go search it for themselves because you didn't want to
"prejudice" them by naming specific papers. What rubbish!
>Bluff? Where's the bluff?
Where are the specific papers?
>I made no point other than I found some papers that might be>helpful in my scrutiny of the Socorro episode.
What are they? Time to show your hand.
>I don't think balloons acccount for Zamora's sighting
More doubletalk.
>but there are peripheral Navt projects which might.
Such as? Again name the specific articles and tell everybody how
a particular project would account for all the details of the
Socorro sighting. If you can't do that, then you've got NOTHING.
Hence your bluffing (a nicer word then bullshitting).
>Take it easy fellow. You'll blow a gasket getting so worked up>about my shenanigans.
How about cutting out the shenanigans instead? If you truly want
reasonable discussions, a good place to start would be to stop
your many personal attacks on your website. But you probably
won't do that, will you Rich? As you told Paul Kimball, the way
to get your blogs read is to keep them "spicy." I doubt somebody
like you would willingly give up the "spice".
David Rudiak